CPSY 501: Lecture 11, Nov14
Please download “relationships.sav”
Non-Parametric Tests
Between subjects:
Mann-Whitney U; Kruskall-Wallis; factorial variants
Within subjects:
Wilcoxon Signed-rank; Friedman’s test
Chi-square (χ2) & Loglinear analysis
Misc. notes:
Exact Tests
Small samples, rare events or groups
Constructing APA formatted tables
Non-parametric Analysis

Analogues to ANOVA & regression




IV & DV parallels
Between-subjects: analogous to
one-way ANOVA & t -tests, factorial
Within-subjects: analogous to
repeated-measures ANOVA
Correlation & regression: Chi-square
(χ2) & loglinear analysis for categorical
Non-parametric “Between-Cell”
or “levels” Comparisons
Non-parametric tests are based on ranks rather than
raw scores: SPSS converts the raw data into rankings
before comparing groups
These tests are advised when (a) scores on the DV
are ordinal; or (b) when scores are interval, but
ANOVA is not robust enough to deal with the existing
deviations from assumptions for the DV distribution
(review: “assumptions of ANOVA”).
If the underlying data meet the assumptions of
parametricity, parametric tests have more power.
Between-Subjects Designs:
Mann-Whitney U
Design: Non-parametric, continuous DV; two
comparison groups (IV); different participants in
each group (“betw subjects” cells; cf. t-tests & χ2).
Examples of research designs needing this statistic?
Purpose: To determine if there is a significant
“difference in level” between the two groups
“Data Structure” = Entry format: 1 variable to
represent the group membership for each participant
(IV) & 1 variable representing scores on the DV.
Mann-Whitney U in SPSS:
Relationships data set
Running the analysis: analyze> nonparametric> 2
independent samples> “2 Independent samples” 
“Grouping var” (IV-had any…) & “Test var” (DVquality…) & “Mann-Whitney U”
Note: the “define groups” function can be used to
define any two groups within the IV (if there are
more than two comparison groups).
(If available) to switch from “asymptotic” method of
calculation to “exact” analyze> nonparametric> 2
independent samples> “Exact” (requires optional
SPSS module; see Notes at end of outline)
Mann-Whitney U in SPSS (cont.)
Test Statisticsa
Mann-Whitney U
Wilcoxon W
Z
Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed)
Quality of
Commun
cation
311.000
1014.000
-1.890
.059
a. Grouping Variable: Had any counselling
There was no significant effect of Having Counselling
on Quality of Communication, U = 311.00, p = .059,
MdnH = 4.0, MdnN = 3.0. [try Descriptive Stats>Explore]
Effect Size in Mann-Whitney U
Must be calculated manually, using the following
formula:
Z
r= ̶̶̶̶
√N
- 1.89
r= ̶̶̶̶
√60
r = -.24499
Use existing research or Cohen’s effect size
“estimates” to interpret the meaning of the r score:
“There is a small difference between the therapy
and no therapy groups, r = -.24”
Review & Practice: Mann-Whitney U
… There was no significant effect of Having
Counselling on Quality of Communication, U =
311.00, p = .06, MdnH = 4.0, MdnN = 3.0. There is a
small difference between the therapy and no
therapy groups, r = -.24. …
Try: Is there a significant difference between
spouses who report communication problems and
spouses who have not (“Com_prob”), in terms of
the level of conflict they experience (“Conflict”)?
What is the size of the effect?
Between-Subjects Designs:
Kruskall-Wallis
Design: Non-parametric, continuous DV; two or more
comparison groups; different participants in each
group (parallel to the one-way ANOVA).
Examples of research designs needing this statistic?
Purpose: To determine if there is an overall effect of
the IV on the DV (i.e., if at least 2 groups are
different from each other), while controlling for
experiment-wise inflation of Type I error
Data Structure: 1 variable to represent the groups in
the IV; 1 variable of scores on the DV.
Running Kruskall-Wallis in SPSS
Running the analysis: analyze> nonparametric>
K independent samples> “Kruskall-Wallis H”
Enter the highest and lowest group numbers in the
“define groups” box.
(If available) switch from “asymptotic” method of
calculation to “exact” analyze> nonparametric>
2 independent samples> “Exact” (requires optional
SPSS module & may require longer computing time)
For illustration in our data set:
IV = Type of Counselling & DV = Level of Conflict
Kruskall-Wallis H in SPSS (cont.)
Test Statisticsa,b
Chi-Square
df
Asymp. Sig.
Level of
Conflict
7.094
2
.029
a. Kruskal Wallis Test
b. Grouping Variable: Type of Counselling
Type of counselling has a significant effect on
participants’ level of conflict, χ2(2) = 7.09, p = .029.
Specifically… [report medians & post hoc results…]
Following-up a Significant K-W
Result
If overall KW test is significant, conduct a series of
Mann-Whitney tests to compare the groups, but with
corrections to control for inflation of type I error.
No option for this in SPSS, so manually conduct a
Bonferroni correction ( = .05 / number of
comparisons) and use the corrected  -value to
interpret the results.
Consider comparing only some groups, chosen
according to (a) theory, (b) your research question;
or (c) listing from lowest to highest mean ranks, and
comparing each group to next highest group
Effect Size in Kruskall-Wallis
SPSS has no options to calculate effect-size, so it
must be done manually (by us…).
Instead of calculating overall effect of the IV, it is
more useful to calculate the size of the difference for
every pair of groups that is significantly different from
each other (i.e., from the Mann-Whitney Us):
Z
r groups = ̶ ̶ ̶ ̶
√n groups
Number of participants
in that pair of groups
Reporting Kruskall-Wallis analyses



… Type of Counselling has a significant effect
on participants’ level of conflict, χ2(2) = 7.09,
p = .029. Specifically, the No Counselling
group had higher conflict scores, MdnN = 4.0,
than did the Couples Counselling group, MdnC
= 3.0, Mann-Whitney U = 176.5, Z = -2.61,
p = .009, r = -.37.
… also note that Field uses another notation
for the K-W: … H(2) = 7.09 …
Note: Bonferroni correction: .05 / 3 = .017
Reporting K-W analyses (cont.)

Note: The median for the Individual
Counselling grp is Mdn = 3.0, &
sometimes is not reported  we often
include this kind of information to give
readers a more complete “picture” or
description of results. In this case, we
would need to give more detailed
descriptions about the medians, and that
would be too much detail.
“Checking” nonparametrics…


Comparison of these results with the
corresponding ANOVA may be able to
lend more confidence in the overall
adequacy of the patterns reported.
Nonparametric analyses tend to have
less power for well-distributed DVs, but
they can be more sensitive to effects
when the DV is truly bimodal, for
instance!
“Checking” nonparametrics: EX

E.g., Type of Counselling (IV) and Level
of Conflict (DV) with a one-way ANOVA
(run Levene test & Bonferroni post hoc
comparisons) shows us comparable
results: F(2, 57) = 4.05, p = .023, with
the No Counselling group showing more
conflict than the Couples Counselling
group, MN = 3.87 and MN = 3.04
(“fitting” well with nonparametric
results).  “approximations” help check
Non-Sig Kruskall-Wallis analyses

If the research question behind the
analysis is “important,” we may need to
explore the possibility of low power or
other potential problems. In those
cases, a descriptive follow-up analysis
can be helpful. See the illustration in
the Friedman’s ANOVA discussion
below for some clues.
Non-Parametric Options for Factorial
Between-Subjects Comparisons
SPSS does not provide non-parametric equivalents to
Factorial ANOVA (i.e., 2 or more IVs at once).
One option is to convert each combination of the IVs
into a single group, and run a Kruskall-Wallis,
comparing groups on the newly created variable.
Disadvantages: (a) reduced ability to examine
interaction effects; (b) can end up with many groups
Advantages: (a) can require “planned comparison”
approaches to interactions, drawing on clear
conceptualization; (b) can redefine groups flexibly
Alternatives: Separate K-W tests for each IV; convert
to ranks and do a loglinear analysis; and others.
Example: Nonparametric
“Factorial” Analysis


Research question: How do Marital
Status & Type of Counselling relate to
conflict levels?  Type of Counselling &
Marital Status (IVs) and Level of Conflict
(DV)
Crosstabs for the 2 IVs show that cell
sizes are “good enough” (smallest cells,
for individual counselling, have 5 & 6
people per group)
Nonparametric “Factorial” …


6 Groups: Individual counsel & married;
Individ & divorced; Couples counselling
& Married; Couples counselling &
divorced; No counselling & Married; No
counselling & Divorced.
Create a new IV, with these 6 groups,
coded as 6 separate groups (using
Transform > Recode into Different Variables
& “If” conditions, for instance)
Test Statistics(a,b)
Level of
Conflict
Chi-Square
df
Asymp. Sig.
8.753
5
.119
a Kruskal Wallis Test
b Grouping Variable: Counselling Type & Marital Status

The K-W test for the combined variable
is not significant. This result suggests
that the significant effect for
Counselling Type is masked when
combined with Marital Status.
Test Statistics(a)
Level of
Conflict
Mann-Whitney U
337.000
Wilcoxon W
802.000
Z
Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed)
-1.752
.080
a Grouping Variable: Marital Status

The idea of a “masking effect” of
Marital Status shows as well when we
test that main effect alone.
Interaction issues: A note

Divorced-No counselling group assumed
to have high conflict levels can be
compared some of the other 5 groups
with Mann-Whitney U tests, as a
“theoretically guided” replacement for
interaction tests in non-parametric
analysis. The choice depends on
conceptual relations between the IVs.
More Practice: Kruskall-Wallis
Is there a significant effect of number of children
(“children,” with scores ranging from 0 to 3) on
quality of marital communication (quality)?
Within-Subjects 2-cell Designs:
Wilcoxon Signed-rank test
Requirements: Non-parametric, continuous DV; two
comparison cells/times/conditions; related (or the
same) participants in both repetitions.  this
analysis parallels the “paired-samples” t-test
Examples of research designs needing this statistic?
Purpose: To determine if there is a significant
difference between the two times/groups.
Data Entry: Separate variables to represent each
repetition of scores on the DV.
Running Wilcoxon Signed-rank
in SPSS
Running the analysis: analyze > nonparametric
> 2 related samples> “Wilcoxon”
Select each pair of repetitions that you want to
compare. Multiple pairs can be compared at once
(but with no correction for doing multiple tests).
(If available) switch from “asymptotic” method of
calculation to “exact” analyze > nonparametric >
2 related samples> “Exact”
Practise: does level of conflict decrease from pretherapy (Pre-conf) to post-therapy (Conflict)?
Running Wilcoxon Signed-rank
in SPSS (Cont.)
Ran ks
N
Pre-therapy l evel of
Confl ict - Level of Conflict
Neg ati ve Ranks
Posi tive Ranks
Ties
Total
1a
13b
46c
60
Mean Rank
4.50
7.73
Sum of Ranks
4.50
100.50
a. Pre-therapy l evel of Confl ict < Level of Confli ct
b. Pre-therapy l evel of Confl ict > Level of Confli ct
c. Pre-therapy l evel of Confl ict = Level of Confli ct
There was a significant
reduction in level of conflict
after therapy, T = 4.5, p =
.002 OR Z = -3.09, p = .002
[effect size added here]
Test Statisticsb
Z
Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed)
Pre-therapy
level of
Conflict Level of
Conflict
-3.094a
.002
a. Based on negative ranks.
b. Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test
Effect Size in Wilcoxon Signedrank test
Must be calculated manually, using the following
formula:
Z
r= ̶̶̶̶
√N
observations
- 3.09
r= ̶̶̶̶̶̶
√120
r = -.28
The N here is the total number of observations that
were made (typically, participants x 2 when you
have two levels of the w/i variable [times], & so on)
Wilcoxon Signed-rank: Practice
Is there a significant change between pre-therapy
levels of conflict (Pre_conf) and level of conflict 1
year after therapy (Follow_conf)?
If so, calculate the size of the effect. Note that
participant attrition at time 3 (i.e., Follow_conf)
changes the total number of observations that are
involved in the analysis.

EX: “There was a significant reduction in level
of conflict after therapy, T = 4.5, p = .002
[OR Z = -3.09, p = .002], r = -.28.”
Within-Subjects Designs for 3 or
more cells: Friedman’s ANOVA
Requirements: Non-parametric, continuous DV;
several comparison groups/times; related (or the
same) participants in each group. Repeated measures
Examples of research designs needing this statistic?
Purpose: To determine if there is an overall change in
the DV among the different repetition (i.e., if scores
in at least 2 repetitions are different from each
other), while controlling for inflated Type I error.
Data Entry: A separate variable for each repetition of
scores on the DV (= each “cell”).
Running Friedman’s in SPSS
Running the analysis: analyze >nonparametric
>K related samples > “Friedman”
Move each repetition, in the correct order, into the
“test variables” box.
(If available) switch from “asymptotic” method of
calculation to “exact” analyze> nonparametric
> K related samples> “Exact” (requires optional SPSS
module
Running Friedman’s ANOVA in
SPSS (Cont.)
Test Statisticsa
N
Chi-Square
df
Asymp. Sig.
57
9.065
2
.011
a. Friedman Test
There was a significant change in levels of conflict
over time, χ2(2, N = 57) = 9.07, p = .011.
Specifically… [report of post hoc results goes here]
Following-up a Significant
Friedman’s Result: Post hoc tests
If Friedman’s is significant, one may conduct a series
of Wilcoxon Signed-ranks tests to identify where the
specific differences lie, but with corrections to control
for inflation of type I error.
Calculate a Bonferroni correction to the significance
level ( = .05 / number of comparisons) and use the
corrected -value to guide your interpretation of the
results. Reminder: Bonferroni corrections are overly
conservative, so they might not be significant.
Post hoc Median comparisons
following a Friedman’s Test: 2
If you have many levels of the IV (“repetitions,”
“times,” etc.) consider comparing only some of them,
chosen according to (a) theory or your research
question; or (b) time 1 vs. time 2, time 2 vs. time 3,
time 3 vs. time 4, etc.
Strategy for the No. of Comparisons: For instance,
one makes only k – 1 comparisons (max), where k =
# of levels of the IV. This suggestion for restricting
comparisons is more important if the effect sizes or
power are low, or the # of cells is large, thus
exaggerating Type II error.
Our Example: 3 cells




Post hoc analyses: 3 Wilcoxon’s @ .05
overall p.  Bonferroni correction is .017
as a significance level cutoff
Pre-Post comparison: z = - 3.09, p = .002,
r = -.28
Pre-One year later: z = - 2.44, p = .015,
r = -.22; Post-to-One year later: ns
Thus, improvement after therapy is
maintained at the follow-up assessment.
REPORT in article…

There was a significant change in levels
of conflict over time, χ2 (2, N = 57) =
9.07, p = .011. Specifically, conflict
reduced from pre-therapy levels at
post-therapy observations, Z = -3.09, p
= .002, r = -.28, and levels remained
below pre-therapy conflict levels one
year later, Z = -2.44, p = .015, r = .22.
Following-up a Non-significant
Friedman’s Result
If Friedman’s is not significant, we often need to
consider whether the results reflect low power or
some other source of Type II error. This holds for any
analysis, but we can illustrate the process here.
Conduct a series of Wilcoxon Signed-ranks tests, but
the focus of attention is on effect sizes, not on
significance levels (to describe effects in this sample).
If the effect sizes are in a “moderate” range, say >
.25, then the results could be worth reporting.
Enough detail should be reported to be useful with
future meta-analyses.
Friedman’s Practice
Load the “Looks or Personality” data set (Field)
Is there a significant difference between participants’
judgements of people who are of average physical
appearance, but present as dull (“ave_none”);
somewhat charismatic (“ave_some”), or as having high
charisma (“ave_high”)?
If so, conduct post-hoc tests to identify where the
specific differences lie.
Between-Subject Designs
Non-Parametric
Mann-Whitney /
Wilcoxon rank-sum
Parametric
Independent samples
t-test (1 IV, 1 DV)
Kruskal-Wallis
One-way ANOVA


Further post-hoc tests if
significant (H or χ2)
Use Mann-Whitney
(1 IV w/ >2 levels, 1 DV)

Further post-hoc tests if
F-ratio significant
Factorial ANOVA
( ≥2 IVs, 1 DV)

Further post-hoc tests if
F-ratio significant
Within-Subjects Designs
Non-Parametric
Wilcoxon Signed-rank
Parametric
Paired/related samples
t-test
Friedman’s ANOVA
Repeated Measures
ANOVA

Further post-hoc
tests if significant

Further investigation
needed if significant
Categorical Data Analyses
Chi-square (χ2): Two categorical variables. Identifies
whether there is non-random association between the
variables. (review)
Loglinear Analysis: More than two categorical
variables. Identifies the relationship among the
variables and the main effects and interactions that
contribute significantly to that relationship.
McNemar / Cochran’s Q: One dichotomous categorical
DV, and one categorical IV with two or more groups.
Identifies if there are any significant differences
between the groups. McNemar is used for
independent IVs, Cochran for dependent IVs.
Assumptions & Requirements to
Conduct a χ2 Analysis
Usually two variables: Each variable may have two
or more categories within it.
Independence of scores: Each observation/person
should be in only one category for each variable and,
therefore, in only one cell of the contingency table.
Minimum expected cell sizes: For data sets with
fewer cells, all cells must have expected frequencies
of > 5 cases; for data sets with a larger numbers of
cells, 80% of cells (rounded up) must have expected
frequencies of > 5 cases AND no cells can be empty.
Analyse >descriptives >crosstabs >cells> “expected”
Doing χ2 Analysis in SPSS
Data entry: It is often better to enter the data as raw
scores, not weighted cases (for small data sets).
Assess for data entry errors and systematic missing
data (but not outliers). Assess for assumptions and
requirements of chi-square.
(If available, change the estimation method to Exact
Test Analyse>descriptives> crosstabs>exact…>
“Exact” This requires an additional SPSS module.)
Run the main χ2 analysis: Analyse >descriptives
>crosstabs >statistics > “chi-square”
Types of χ2 Tests
Pearson Chi-square: Compares the actual scores you
observed in each cell, against what frequencies of
scores that you would have expected, due to chance.
Yates’ Continuity Correction: Adjustment to Pearson
Chi-square, to correct for inflated estimates when
you have a 2 x 2 contingency table. However, it can
overcorrect, leading to underestimation of χ2.
Likelihood Ratio Chi-square (Lχ2): Alternative way to
calculate chi-square, based on maximum likelihood
methods. Slightly more accurate method of
estimation for small samples, but it’s less well known.
Interpreting a χ2 Result
Ideally, all three types of χ2 will yield the same
conclusion. When they differ, the Likelihood Ratio is
preferred method (esp. for 2 x 2 contingency tables).
Chi-Square Tests
Pearson Chi-Square
Likelihood Ratio
Fisher's Exact Test
Linear-by-Linear
Association
N of Valid Cases
Value
7.459a
7.656
7.409
b
1.992
Exact Sig.
(2-sided)
.022
.022
.022
Exact Sig.
(1-sided)
Point
Probability
2
2
Asymp. Sig.
(2-sided)
.024
.022
1
.158
.216
.108
.053
df
60
a. 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 5.50.
b. The standardized statistic is 1.411.
There is a sig. association between marital status and
type of therapy, Lχ2 (2, N = 60) = 7.66, p = .022, with
[describe strength of association or odds ratios].
Effect Sizes in χ2
Strength of Association: There are several ways to
convert a χ2 to run from 0 to 1, to be able to interpret
it like a correlation (r not r2):
(a) Phi Coefficient (accurate for 2x2 designs only);
(b) Cramer’s V (accurate for all χ2 designs);
(c) Contingency Coefficient (estimates can be too
conservative… normally, do not use this one).
Analyse >descriptives >crosstabs >statistics> “Phi and
Cramer’s V”
Odds Ratio: For a 2 x 2 contingency table, calculate
the odds of getting a particular category on one
variable, given a particular category on the other
variable. Must be done “by hand” (see p. 694 of text).
From χ2 to Loglinear Analysis


Χ2 is used commonly with two categorical
variables.
Loglinear Analysis is usually recommended for
three or more categorical variables.
Preview: Loglinear Analysis …



…Used as a parallel “analytic strategy”
to factorial ANOVA when the DV is
categorical rather than ordinal (but a
conceptual DV is not required)
So the general principles also parallel
those of multiple regression for
categorical variables
Conceptual parallel: e.g., Interactions =
moderation among relationships.
Journals: Loglinear Analysis



Fitzpatrick et al. (2001). Exploratory
design with 3 categorical variables.
Coding systems for session recordings
& transcripts: counsellor interventions,
client good moments, & strength of
working alliance
Therapy process research: 21 sessions,
male & female clients & therapists,
expert therapists, diverse models.
Abstract: Interpreting a study




Client ‘good moments’ did not
necessarily increase with Alliance
Different interventions fit with Client
Information good moments at different
Alliance levels.
“Qualitatively different therapeutic
processes are in operation at different
Alliance levels.”
Explain each statement & how it
summarizes the results.
Research question




What associations are there between
WAI, TVRM, & CGM for experts?
Working Alliance Inventory (Observer
version: low, moderate, high sessions)
Therapist Verbal Response Modes (8
categories: read from tables)
Client Good Moments (Significant
Information-I, Exploratory-E, AffectiveExpressive-A) (following T statements)
Analysis Strategy



Loglinear analysis starts with the most
complex interaction (“highest order”)
and tests whether it adds incrementally
to the overall model fit (cf. the idea of
ΔR2 in regression analysis).
The 3-way interaction can be dropped
in a couple of analyses, but not in one.
Interpretation thus focuses on 2-way
interactions & a 3-way interaction.
Sample Results


Exploratory Good Moments tended to
occur more frequently in High Alliance
sessions (2-way interaction).
Alliance x Interventions interaction:
Structured interventions (guidance)
take place in Hi or Lo Alliance sessions,
while Unstructured interventions
(reflection) are higher in Moderate
Alliance sessions (see figure).
Explain: What does it mean?

Alliance x Interventions interaction:
Structured interventions (guidance)
take place in Hi or Lo Alliance sessions,
while Unstructured interventions
(reflection) are higher in Moderate
Alliance sessions  describes shared
features of “working through” and
“working with” clients, different
functions of safety & guidance.
Explaining “practice”:



(a) Explain: Exploratory Good Moments
tended to occur more frequently in High
Alliance sessions (2-way interaction).
(b) How does the article show that this
effect is significant?
 Relatively “easy” questions.
Appendixes


Slides with information on Exact tests
A slide on ways to format tables in
accord with APA style
Exact tests: for small
samples & rare occurrences

Assumptions. Asymptotic methods
assume that the dataset is reasonably
“large,” and that tables are densely
populated and well balanced. If the
dataset is small, or tables are sparse or
unbalanced, the assumptions necessary
for the asymptotic method have not been
met, & we can benefit by using the
“exact” or the Monte Carlo methods.
EXACT TESTS


Exact. The probability of the observed
outcome or an outcome more extreme is
calculated exactly. Typically, a significance
level less than 0.05 is considered significant,
indicating that there is some relationship
between the row and column variables.
Moreover, an exact test is often more
appropriate than an asymptotic test because
randomization rather than random sampling
is the norm, for example in biomedical
research.
Monte Carlo Estimates

Monte Carlo Estimate. An unbiased estimate
of the exact significance level, calculated by
repeatedly sampling from a reference set of
tables with the same dimensions and row and
column margins as the observed table. The
Monte Carlo method allows you to estimate
exact significance without relying on the
assumptions required for the asymptotic
method. This method is most useful when the
data set is too large to compute exact
significance, but the data do not meet the
assumptions of the asymptotic method.
From SPSS help files

Example. Asymptotic results obtained from small datasets or sparse or
unbalanced tables can be misleading. Exact tests enable you to obtain an
accurate significance level without relying on assumptions that might not
be met by your data. For example, results of an entrance exam for 20 fire
fighters in a small township show that all five white applicants received a
pass result, whereas the results for Black, Asian and Hispanic applicants
are mixed. A Pearson chi-square testing the null hypothesis that results are
independent of race produces an asymptotic significance level of 0.07. This
result leads to the conclusion that exam results are independent of the
race of the examinee. However, because the data contain only 20 cases
and the cells have expected frequencies of less than 5, this result is not
trustworthy. The exact significance of the Pearson chi-square is 0.04,
which leads to the opposite conclusion. Based on the exact significance,
you would conclude that exam results and race of the examinee are
related. This demonstrates the importance of obtaining exact results when
the assumptions of the asymptotic method cannot be met. The exact
significance is always reliable, regardless of the
size, distribution, sparseness, or balance of the
data.
SPSS exact stats


SPSS has Exact stats options for NPAR
TESTS and CROSSTABS commands
You may have to use syntax commands
to use this option. See SPSS help files
for further information.
Formatting of Tables (for Project,
Thesis, etc.)
Use the “insert table” and “table properties” functions
of MSWord to build your tables; don’t do it manually.
General guidelines for table formatting can be found
on pages 147-176 of the APA manual.
Additional tips, instructions and examples for how to
construct tables can be down-loaded from the NCFR
web-site: http://oregonstate.edu/~acock/tables/
In particular, pay attention to the column alignment
article, for how to get your numbers to align according
to the decimal point (which is where it should be).